International Journal Of Literature And Languages
19
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
19-21
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue06-06
Comparative Analysis of Cognitive-Pragmatic Features in
The Translation of Satirical Texts
Khabibulla Abdullayevich Baymanov
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages, Tashkent
University of Applied Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Mohinur Majid kizi Soatova
Doctoral student (PhD), Tashkent Institute of Textile and Light Industry, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Received:
11 April 2025;
Accepted:
07 May 2025;
Published:
09 June 2025
Abstract:
In our article, we present theoretical information and solutions for comparative analysis within the
framework of cognitive-pragmatic features encountered in the process of translating humorous texts. To achieve
an adequate translation, it is necessary to consider several important aspects. Although linguistics has long been
studying wordplay, which forms the basis for creating jokes and humor, the translator should consider how to
reflect various features of the source language, such as cognitive-pragmatic characteristics and existing styles, in
the target text. Particular attention should be paid to these elements, especially if they are used to create a sense
of humor.
Keywords:
Expression of humor, humorous text, cognitive-pragmatic features.
Introduction:
For translation theory, comparative
studies involving source texts and translated texts are
of great importance from both theoretical and practical
perspectives. As Komissarov noted: “An
y theoretical
concept should be based on describing, generalizing,
and explaining the facts observed in the real translation
process” [Komissarov, 2017, p. 112]. Such research
allows for deeper insight into the mechanics of
translation activity, analysis of the translator's chosen
strategy, assessment of translation quality, and the
study of many other aspects.
Moreover, as Michael Hoey and Diane Houghton
[Hoey, Houghton, 2005, p. 49] point out, the
relationship between comparative analysis and
translation is bilateral: on the one hand, the translation
of text segments can provide information for analysis,
and on the other hand, analysis can explain the
difficulties that arise in the translation process.
However, we understand that comparison is based on
systematicity from the very beginning. For example,
Reformatsky, in his third thesis cited in the section “On
the Comparative Method”, also stated: “Comparison
should be based not on individual, disorganized
differences, but on the systematic contrasts of
cat
egories and series of our own and others”.
Main part
The foundation for conducting a comparative analysis
in translation theory is, first and foremost, the concept
of systematicity and the understanding that two texts
(for example, the original text and the translated text)
can be compared to identify similarities and differences
within this system.
Texts that can be compared when conducting
comparative studies may include:
•
original text - translated text;
•
translation 1 - translation 2 (translations
created in the same period or with a time interval);
•
original text - translation (into 1st language) -
translation (into 2nd language).
Comparative analysis between two translations
without reference to the original text is rare. The
proposed cognitive-pragmatic model arises from the
necessity to consider a holistic system of parameters
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
20
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
encompassing factors at different levels - cognitive,
linguistic, and pragmatic [Brône, 2015]. This approach
allows comparative analysis to reach an entirely new
level in terms of quality and depth, as well as the
objectivity of observations and conclusions.
Simultaneously, translation science as a discipline not
only actively but also effectively applies the concepts,
methods, and data from numerous linguistic directions
[Komissarov, 2017, p. 44]. Such an approach does not
rely solely on the field of linguistics, as it would
otherwise lack sufficient explanatory power. Now let's
examine an interesting example that, in our view,
demonstrates the explanatory potential of the
cognitive-pragmatic feature for comparative analysis:
one of two characters discusses the other's work
related to computer technologies. However, this
conversation is not well-received by the first character,
since it takes place at a dinner organized in honor of a
great poet, and perhaps in this situation, a discussion
of lofty topics was expected.
“Ah, is it”, muttered Reg, “is it”? and turned back to
Richard. “It’s the Coleridge Dinner”, he said knowingly.
“Coleridge was a member of the college, you know”,
he
added after a moment. “Coleridge. Samuel Taylor.
Poet. I expect you’ve heard of him. This is his Dinner.
Well, not literally, of course. It would be cold by now”.
Silence. “Here, have some salt”. [Adams, 2013, p. 19]
The Hidden Underlying Effect is essentially associated
with the collision of two scripts, such as “living poet” /
“deceased poet”. The event takes place during a dinner
organized in honor of Coleridge. The protagonist,
alluding to this situation, sarcastically emphasizes that
this is a dinner dedicated not to a living poet, but to a
poet who has already passed away.
The phrase “This is his dinner” can have two meanings:
this is the dinner organized by the person himself; this
is the dinner organized in honor of the person (i.e.,
Coleridge).
This ambiguity is further amplified by the comment
“not literally, of course”
- this phrase supports both
scripts simultaneously, indicating that the protagonist
is aware of the possible second meaning in the first
sentence.
The trigger for the script collision (i.e., the initiating
phrase) is the sentence “It would be cold by now”. This
idea implies that if Coleridge had organized the lunch
himself, it would have already gotten cold [Abaeva,
2018].
Through the examples provided below, we
demonstrate that the translator faces a very complex
choice, which is not limited to finding a simple lexical
equivalent or replacing a grammatical form. Especially
in cases related to JE, translation options are extremely
broad. Here, it is appropriate to recall Mona Baker's
following opinion: in cases where JE exists, it is
permissible for the translator to apply unusual linguistic
solutions [Baker, 2011].
Moreover, sometimes it is difficult to understand how
the translator arrived at the final decision, since
countless transformations are used in the translation
process. “The decision is so satisfactory that when
there is a feeling that it's possible to move forward, it is
almost impossible to logically analyze this decision”,
writes [Robinson, 2014, pp. 257-258].
“Ah, so that’s what it’s about”, muttered the professor.
“Of course, of course!” He turned to Richard. “The
annual Coleridge Readings”, he said thoughtfully,
nodding his head. “You see, he's a graduate of our
college”, he added after a pause. “Samuel Taylor
Coleridge. I hope you've heard of him. This is a dinner
in his honor. Not literally, of course. That wouldn't be
very appropriate now”. [Adams, 1996, p. 22]
Since there is no complete equivalent for the first
phrase, the first translator chooses one of the scripts
and expresses it through the following linguistic means:
“a dinner in his honor”.
This can be logically analyzed as follows:
•
If a dinner is organized in someone's honor, this
person is usually famous (here, the “famous poet”
script coexists with the [Coleridge] script).
•
At the same time, the person usually
participates personally in such events (here the script
conflicts with [Coleridge] because he cannot
participate, as he is deceased).
The [Coleridge] script is supported not only by
background knowledge but also by the second
sentence
–
“That wouldn't be very appropriate now”
[Abaeva, 2018].
A similar situation is observed in the second
translation:
“Ah, I see”, muttered the professor and looked at
Richard. “A lunch in honor of Coleridge”, he said,
appearing knowledgeable, and a moment later added:
“Coleridge. Samuel Taylor. Poet. He studied here. I
assume you’ve heard of him. And now we are guests at
his table. No, of course, not literally. The food would
have gone cold long ago”.
[Adams, 2014, p. 21]
The translator slightly alters the perspective here: this
is his званый обед (formal dinner), so he is the host,
and we are guests at his table. This form was chosen to
create a secondary interpretation (i.e., ambiguity).
Especially the phrase “we are guests at his table”: it’s
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
21
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
his table - so the poet is alive / dead - the food would
have already cooled [Abaeva, 2018].
Undoubtedly, analyzing the “mechanics” of the
translation process is significantly simplified when
considering the proposed parameters (in this case, the
“collision of scripts”).
Here, the necessary system or subsystem falls within
the scope of cognitive s
cience. In this context, “not the
semantic image, but the imagination in the human
knowledge system plays a leading role. Thus, units at
the cognitive level are methods of a person’s figurative
perception of the environment, which are sometimes
expressed t
hrough language, and sometimes not”
[Denisenko, 2016, p. 142].
It is difficult to clearly explain, based solely on linguistic
rules, how the phrase “This is his dinner” transforms
into, “Now we are guests at his table”, or how “It would
be cold by now” becomes “It wouldn’t be so
appropriate now” [Abaeva, 2018].
CONCLUSION
When comparing original and translated texts, the
following approach can be applied: creating a table that
allows for recording the necessary correspondences for
each parameter.
If an original text and two translated versions are being
compared, it is proposed not only to establish
correspondences by parameters but also to evaluate
them on a scale from 0 to 5 and compare the
translations with each other.
Conducting a comparative analysis of each parameter
within the cognitive-pragmatic framework, in our
opinion, allows for a systematic approach to two
important issues of constant interest to researchers:
- translation strategies and
- translation losses.
Comparative analysis of several translated texts helps
to more accurately trace the translators’ strategies, as
the dominant elements characteristic of them become
clearly visible. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized
that in all cases, it is advisable to first compare the
translations with the original text.
REFERENCES
Abaeva E. S. [Problems of translating excerpts with a
humorous effect from Russian into English]. In: Russian
language and culture in the mirror of translation. Issue
1 [Russian language and culture reflected in
translation], Moscow, Higher School of Translation,
Lomonosov Moscow State University Publ., 2017, pp. 7-
16. 7-16.
Attardo, Salvatore. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin
and New York. Atherton, 2021.
Brone G. Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research //
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor / Ed.
by S. Attardo, 2017. pp. 250-266.
Ghaybullah as-Salom. Theory and Practice of
Translation. Tashkent, 2003. p. 29.
Khalida Hamid T. Translating Cultural Humor: Theory
and Practice. University of Baghdad.
Musiychuk M. V. Cognitive Mechanisms of the
Structure
of
the
Comic:
Philosophical
and
Methodological Aspects. Abstract of dissertation for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophical Sciences. -
Novosibirsk, 2012. - 32 p.
Pedersen, J. Subtitling norms for television: An
exploration focussing on extralinguistic cultural
references. John Benjamins Publishing. 2018.
Raskin V. Semantic mechanisms of humor. Holland: D.
Reidel Publishing Company, 2016. 284 p.
Safarov Sh. The Theory of Cognitive Linguistics. -
Jizzakh: Sangzor Publishing House, 2020. - 79 p.
Shakhobiddinova Sh. The Dialectic of Generality and
Particularity and Its Reflection in the Morphology of the
Uzbek Language. Extended abstract of doctoral
dissertation. - Tashkent, 2001. - 50 p.
Valeeva, N. G. Theory of Translation: Cultural-Cognitive
and Communicative-Functional Aspects (Translation
theory:
cultural-cognitive
and
communicative-
functional aspects), Moscow: Peoples' Friendship
University of Russia, 2018, 244 p.
Vandaele J. Introduction. (Re-) Constructing Humor:
Meanings and Means // The Translator. 2002. Vol. 8.
Iss.
2.
P.
149-172.
DOI:
10.1080/13556509.2002.10799130.
Wickberg D. The Senses of Humor Self and Laughter in
Modern America. Cornell University Press, 2018. 280 p.
Zabalbeascoa, P. Humor and translation - an
interdiscipline. International Journal of Humor
Research,
18
(2).
2005.
185-207p.
https://doi.org/10.1515/humor.2005.18.2.185
